Re: [httpbis] #364: Capturing more information in the method registry

On 04/07/2012, at 5:54 AM, mike amundsen wrote:

> Yes, I think safety and idempotence are most needed in this table of previously registered methods.
> Per Julian's comment: if one of the reasons to leave idempotence off the list is that we don't know whether some of these methods are idempotent or not, then I'd opt for saying that in this table ("UNK", etc.) rather than leaving that property out of the table completely.
> On a related note, I wasn't able to find any details on the method registry. Anyone able to give me some pointers?

It's set up here:


Mark Nottingham

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 19:58:52 UTC